The Abortion Debate (Part 5)

We wrap up this series with some common arguments you’ll hear in abortion debates and how to totally discredit them.

“If you force women to have their babies, their children will be unloved and abused.”

There are abused and unloved children all over the world; ending abortions would not contribute much to that number. Besides, the decisions to abort are usually emotion-based (whatever the reason, the woman doesn’t WANT the baby), and emotions can greatly change over time. Again, we can trot out the toddler and ask, “If you decide you no longer love your 2-year-old (I can’t imagine why!), is that justification to kill it?”

“If you don’t want me to have an abortion, then adopt my child!”

This is like saying, “If you want me to lose weight, you have to eat my food.” Or, “If you don’t want me to kill my no-good husband, you have to marry him.” This is another tactic to change the venue and shut down the pro-lifers, but it’s only a red herring. The morality of a given action does not depend on outside conditions.

“Of course YOU are against abortion; you’re a MAN and will never have to make that choice!”

This is similar to the “adopt my child” ruse. Even if you’ve never been robbed, you still have the authority to say theft is immoral. There are many insensitive things a man can say to a woman, just because he doesn’t have her feminine insights, but this is not one of them.

“It would be unfair or discrimination for women to not be allowed to have a medical procedure, when men are allowed to have ANY medical procedure!”

I’ve actually read Senator Barbara Boxer say something very close to this, recently. She is reducing the ending of a life to a simple medical procedure. Again, that’s just another attempt to change the venue of the debate, maybe by rolling it into the floundering healthcare reform negotiations. Pregnancy, by its very nature, is a very unique physical process, by which a new life is preparing to enter this world. This puts it in a class by itself, in the medical field. It’s “unfortunate” for Senator “Don’t call me Ma’am” Boxer that (as of yet) only women can suffer from this particular medical condition, but that’s life. No pun intended.

“I’m personally against abortion, but I think it should be legal.”

President Obama and other politicians have used this phrase more times that anybody can count, especially if you count their positions on other ethical issue of the day (same-sex marriage, marihuana, euthanasia, etc…). These kinds of statements confuse a moral dilemma with a personal preference. “I’m personally against going 100 MPH on the interstate, but I think it should be legal.” In fact, the implication to the listener (whether it’s true or not) is that you believe the issue to be objectively morally acceptable. This is what concerned us about most of 2008’s presidential candidates.

“If you outlaw abortion again, there will be an increase in back-alley abortions, which will greatly endanger the health of countless women.”

Now that abortion is legal, there are FAR more fetuses being killed and mothers suffering from the physical and psychological repercussions. For most, the simple illegality of an act will prevent it from being committed, and will encourage alternatives (such as adoption). Besides, there are consequences to every action; we cannot legalize something, just because there are those who refuse to consider the potential effects. If we repeal speed limits, and no longer require motorists to wear seat belts or helmets, would traffic fatalities increase or decrease?

“Abortions should be allowed, in the case where the mother’s life is in danger.”

Mr. Klunsendorf points out that the only case where a mother’s life is truly endangered by a pregnancy is when the fetus implants itself in the fallopian tube. This is called an ectopic pregnancy and, if allowed to continue, results in the death of both mother and baby. In this one case, the only way to prevent two persons from dying is to remove the fetus. Either way, the fetus is doomed (at least with current medical science), and it makes sense to at least save the mother. Most, if not all, other medical complications occur late enough in the pregnancy, that a C-section will give both mother and child terrific chances of survival.

I’m not necessarily promoting open protest, but I hope this series has opened some eyes and/or equipped you to defend your pro-life position. Thank you for reading!

The Abortion Debate (Part 4)

Remember that the abortionists do not want a debate on the sanctity of life, because they know society in general (thankfully) still puts great value to all human life; they would lose. So they borrow from the “gay rights” groups’ playbook and try to steer the discussion toward human rights. But we cannot allow their sneaky tactics to change the venue. The debate is really about what a fetus is. If they can prove that a fetus is NOT human, then clearly a mother’s right trumps any rights it might be otherwise entitled to. But they will avoid that debate at all costs and simply make the implicit or explicit assertion that a fetus is merely a mass of cells, not much different from a tumor.

Trot Out the Toddler

Mr. Klusendorf proposes a very effective approach to putting the focus back on the sanctity of life. He calls it “Trot out the toddler.” When someone argues with you that reason X justifies an abortion, you ask, “If it was a two-year-old, would it still be reasonable to have it killed?”

One common justification for abortion is in the case of rape. No doubt, rape is a heinous crime that not only violates a woman’s body, her individual rights, and maybe even her very humanity. Her choice was taken from her, and if it results in pregnancy, it might be tempting to redeem some of that lost choice by choosing to abort the unborn child. What’s more, even if she does decide to have the baby, it will serve as a constant reminder of her harrowing ordeal and the man who violated her. Surely, the woman’s mental well-being is enough of a reason here to justify abortion.

So, let’s trot out the toddler. Say, for whatever reason, she carries the baby to term and then realizes that the mental anguish is too much to bear. Is there anyone on this planet who would agree that she has the right to end its life, after it was already born?

The question is not whether it would be illegal, under criminal or civil laws, (it obviously is, in the entire civilized world) but rather if it would be moral and ethical. Remember that most (if not all) laws originate from the lawmakers’ moral and ethical values. The morality debates on issues like abortion and same-sex “marriage” drive the laws of the land.

We will trot out the toddler again, in the next (and last!) post.

The Abortion Debate (Part 3)

Functionality

Aside from merely being alive, many additional requirements are often made, to declare one a human. After all, a liver cell has all the DNA of the full human being, but it is not itself human, nor will it ever be, even if it is perfectly alive and growing. Indeed, there is a cornucopia of criteria we generally use, to declare a lifeform as “human”. Let’s pick four essential characteristics (out of the many), that science believes are unique to humans, and show that there are easily humans that do not have any of these, and yet we would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would not call them “human”.

Human beings have (1) distinctive facial features, (2) walk upright, (3) possess a consciousness, and (4) have an intellect far above any other known creature. Now, suppose we see a “person” sleeping in a hospital bed, whose face is severely burned, has had the legs amputated at the waist, and suffers from severe brain damage. And yet, we would still call this person “human”, because he possessed all four required qualities at some time (he will even regain one, consciousness, as soon as he awakes) and still possesses countless other characteristics that unquestioningly categorize him as human. In fact, one may argue that a perfectly healthy fetus is more human than the tragically injured being on that hospital bed.

So, where can you draw the line and say that beyond a certain point, any living thing (even a deformed fetus), whose DNA is decidedly human, is NOT a human being?

Dependence

Many who support abortion argue that an early-term fetus is not human, because it cannot survive outside the womb at all, or would at least require medical support. They argue that since it is dependent on its maternal host, it does not meet the necessary requirement. This argument falls flat on its face rather quickly. Can a newborn survive on its own? It is entirely dependent on others, for its food, warmth, and security. Or what about people on dialysis, oxygen, or insulin? Or those with pacemakers or transplanted organs? Are any of them any less human, for requiring medical assistance, in order to live? To take the argument to its extreme, the entire human race resides in a planetary womb, outside of which we cannot survive, at least not without serious astronaut gear. So you see, we all require favorable environmental conditions (some more than others), in order to thrive.

To be continued...